Posted
by
Soulskill
on Sunday November 22, 2015 @08:22AM
from the setting-examples dept.

theodp writes: TechCrunch reports that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will take two months off from Facebook for paternity leave. Why? "Studies show that when working parents take time to be with their newborns, outcomes are better for the children and families," Zuckerberg explained in a FB post on Friday. "At Facebook we offer our U.S. employees up to 4 months of paid maternity or paternity leave which they can take throughout the year." No word on why the child will only get 50% of that time — maybe that's what the gains chart suggested as a good tradeoff — or if expectant parents who apply to send their children to Zuckerberg's new Primary School, which aims to "help children from underserved communities reach their full potential," will be expected to make a similar commitment.

I believe this is a case of correlation rather than causation. Taking paternity leave is likely to be correlated with being a good dad, but it seems unlikely that it is the paternity leave itself that causes that. Newborns crave human contact. But until the are about 6 months old, they don't really care who that human is. Besides, for the first 2 months, they spend 20+ hours a day sleeping.

When my kids were born I arranged to work from home 2 days per week, and wrote code while the kid was sleeping. We saved money on daycare, and I treasure the memories of spending time with the babies, but I doubt if my kids are really doing any better because if it.

So you don't think that learning the non verbal communication with you child and growing your sense of empathy for another caregiver's workload would improve the future outcome? Sometimes the child benefits from improvements in the *caregivers* putting in time to improve their skills and the general environment.

When my kids were born I arranged to work from home 2 days per week, and wrote code while the kid was sleeping. We saved money on daycare, and I treasure the memories of spending time with the babies, but I doubt if my kids are really doing any better because if it.

Of course they are doing better because of it...

Because YOU are a better Dad... YOU have empathy for them, for your wife, and you have memories of your children at that age, you'll always be there for them in ways that Dad's who WEREN'T there won't.

Yeah, confounding variables abound here...for starters, we can ask, 'what do dads who can comfortably take 2 moths off have in common?'
Answer: an extremely comfortable, secure lifestyle. Of course their kids will be better off.

Yes, it is in writing. But can they actually take the time off. A ridiculous number of people can't even take their vacation time because of the fear they will be asked to stop bothering to come into the office.

And they won't say "we're letting you go because you took vacation time", because would be illegal, just something like "we want to move in a different direction, one without you on our team."

Or when you come back to work after an approved vacation your boss approaches you and tells you that a customer complained about you, and that you're fired. Even though in the industry I work in, customer complaints, while taken seriously, are a frequent event. Everyone complains about something, and to get fired for it is rare, and in some shops, illegal under contract.

It doesn't matter if you give a shit - it only matters if you view ads and post comments. You've done your part for the day to encourage such stories.

But topically, there's a subset of IT where you're supposed to "understand" that you shouldn't ever expect to be a good father, spend meaningful time with your kids - "because you're in IT". That's not importance, it's abuse. Many nerds who don't know how to stand up for themselves could use a role model like TheZuck to point to. In my limited experience,

Zuckerberg is hardly what I'd consider a positive role model, unless you feel screwing over millions of people by selling their personal information to the highest bidder while simultaneously looking down on them all as plebs is a virtue.

I hardly consider Zuckerberg a positive role model. But he's been a heckuva lot better than other people who've been in his position (Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates, etc).

- Once he had his billions, he had the opportunity to select any gold-digging trophy wife. Instead, he married his pre-fortune girlfriend.

- He wasn't arrogant, and understood when he was in over his head, and hired outside experts to advise him or do the job for him.

- Facebook has more or less actually been competing with challengers, not playing shenanigans with standards or formats to create an unlevel playing field. That hasn't been true for their instant messaging, but their core service has pretty succeeded because it provided what people wanted and reached critical mass first, not because they crippled up and coming competitors.

- He's been changing himself to follow the market (learning Chinese), not trying to change the market to follow his desires (biggest gripe I had with Jobs).

- Those billions of people he screwed over agreed to allow him to sell their personal information to the highest bidder. If you dislike that FB does this, then you need to convince those people to stop agreeing to stuff like this. If you don't do that, even if Zuckerberg and FB vanished overnight, it would just mean a different company and different CEO would rise up to provide a social media service which did the exact same thing. This is not like Standard Oil or Windows, where you had to use their products if you wanted to survive in the modern world, so you were forced to pay their price. FB's market penetration is only a bit over 50% in the U.S., nothing like the 90+% those monopolies held/hold.

- More than likely, you also probably look down on all those people who willingly give up their personal information as plebs.

"I hardly consider Zuckerberg a positive role model. But he's been a heckuva lot better than other people who've been in his position (Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates, etc)."

No he isn't. He's just as bad, or worse. Just because you're got some kind of facebook stockholm syndrome doesn't mean the rest of us should just fall in line and consider him a decent member of society. He's garbage that abused a lot of people to get where he is, and he continues to abuse those people.

Which does raise an interesting point as to whether or not the effect is due to spending additional time with children or is merely a byproduct of the fact that those who can take time off to spend with their children are far more likely to be wealthy, which is more responsible for the outcome.

Which does raise an interesting point as to whether or not the effect is due to spending additional time with children or is merely a byproduct of the fact that those who can take time off to spend with their children are far more likely to be wealthy, which is more responsible for the outcome.

Is wealth a direct cause, or just another correlate?

More likely I think, parents who care enough to take time off work are going to be better parents.

Its a bit like parenting books. Whether they have useful advice or just repeat what you know, the sort of people who read parenting books are going to be better parents.

But what is a good parent? Other studies have found that kids growing up in a house with lots of books do better, independently of whether the parents read much to their kids.So much of what we

You did not look very hard - that article is talking about something very different, kids 3 to 11. Babies and toddlers need a lot more attention than older kids.It seems quite possible we are neglecting our babies, and overindulging older children who could be more independent, e.g. ride a bicycle, walk or catch a bus to school, friends and soccer instead of being chauffeured everywhere.

You did not look very hard - that article is talking about something very different, kids 3 to 11. Babies and toddlers need a lot more attention than older kids.

Not only that. The article implies that extra time with kids is mostly detrimental when parents are stressed during that time. Extrapolating to infants, where Moms of newborns tend to be really stressed, it seems like having an extra hand (like a father) around would significantly reduce maternal stress, which the quoted study implies would be a good thing.

Actually, I think there's an opposite effect going on. I'd say the children born to wealthy parents, but not unbelieveably so, have the best chances. Being the child of Zuckerberg or Gates means you're growing up in a very unique position which isn't necessarily good for a child's development. It becomes hard to have "normal" social interactions, you have a completely out of whack understanding and relationship with money, etc. This goes even more so as a teenager, where the other teens will know who your parents are, which will heavily color their interactions with you. Plus, many of those parents tend to be extremely busy and it's very well known that parental presence is one of the most important factors in a child's development.

Actually, I think there's an opposite effect going on. I'd say the children born to wealthy parents, but not unbelieveably so, have the best chances. Being the child of Zuckerberg or Gates means you're growing up in a very unique position which isn't necessarily good for a child's development. It becomes hard to have "normal" social interactions, you have a completely out of whack understanding and relationship with money, etc. This goes even more so as a teenager, where the other teens will know who your parents are, which will heavily color their interactions with you. Plus, many of those parents tend to be extremely busy and it's very well known that parental presence is one of the most important factors in a child's development.

It all depends on what 'normal means. I'm sure there are plenty of other rich or rich enough brats in this child's future social circle that 'normal' will just have a different meaning - as our 'normal' is different than the 'normal' of those born on the streets of, for example, Somalia.

I took out 19 months with our firstborn - from when he was 4 months old.

Of course, I'm Swedish. Anyone who would only take two months would be seen as quite uninterested in their children.

(In Sweden you get 480 days per child, to be divided as you see fit between mother and father. 120 of those days are however locked, divided up as 60 each, to each parent. You get 80% of your salary during parental leave, capped to a maximum which is far far below what anyone in "IT" makes)

conservatives are hellbent on babies being born. But after they're born, they don't give a shit about them anymore.

They are also 'hellbent' on personal responsibility and avoiding unwanted pregnancies, last I checked.

You may see a moral equivalence between 'contraception' and 'abortion', other's don't - some folks (like your parents) think of that developing fetus in the girl you slept with as their future grandchild, not a 'mistake'...

Our system isn't as generous as yours (Iceland), but it's still worlds beyond what America offers (no paid leave, and only rather limited unpaid leave to mothers).

I'm of mixed feelings. On one hand, I think it's a great thing to do for parents and for the kids. On the other hand, as someone who's infertile, it's kind of frustrating. I never complain to anyone in person, absolutely not. But I see all of my coworkers in their 20s and 30s having one child after the next and spending a large chunk of their time

Yes, because one just goes out and adopts - it's not like it's a multiyear process, often full of heartbreak, to get a child who more likely than not will grow up with identity issues and spend a lot of time seeing you as "not their real parent". I've been a stepmother before. It was a pretty heartbreaking experience. You know, they start crying over something and you try to console them and they start crying I want my mommy, and you reassure them that you're there for them, and they start crying, no, *MY*

Our system isn't as generous as yours (Iceland), but it's still worlds beyond what America offers (no paid leave, and only rather limited unpaid leave to mothers).

I'm of mixed feelings. On one hand, I think it's a great thing to do for parents and for the kids. On the other hand, as someone who's infertile, it's kind of frustrating. I never complain to anyone in person, absolutely not. But I see all of my coworkers in their 20s and 30s having one child after the next and spending a large chunk of their time on the job... off the job.... often taking their leave in vacation homes or overseas.... I mean, I understand why the time is given, I totally sympathize... but underneath it sort of feels unfair to people who can't have children, to have such a massive benefit for those who can.

Perhaps the solution would be to make things more fair, not necessarily by taking away parental benefits but by granting you and others benefits due to your personal circumstances.

I got my ass handed to me for missing half a day for the unanticipated and rather sudden onset labor of my firstborn, so.... certainly not all of us.

In most sane western countries that would be grounds for taking your employer to court. Although I do know someone in Australia who also got into trouble, but he did so because he called in sick rather than take a separately accountable section of leave specifically intended for such purposes. I should mention the guy was an American expat, clearly not used to the fact that in some countries employees have some rights.

I got my ass handed to me for missing half a day for the unanticipated and rather sudden onset labor of my firstborn, so.... certainly not all of us.

Really? My boss never has a problem when I just don't show up for work for half a day... Perhaps you should have called the boss while your partner was in labor, or were you heavily invested in reminding her to 'breathe'?

Really? My boss never has a problem when I just don't show up for work for half a day... Perhaps you should have called the boss while your partner was in labor, or were you heavily invested in reminding her to 'breathe'?

Nope...that was me at the wheel of the Skylark, above the speed limit with the emergency flashers on, hoping to get pulled over so I could use the line.

Why is this news? Don't most parents take (m|p)aternity leave when they have newborns?

I guess this is why this really is news that matters. Because paternity leave is a very rare thing in the US. You may live in Europe where this being news sounds like nonsense, which more Americans need to realize. Less than 15% of US employers offer paternity leave, and that is almost entirely exclusive to white collar professions. Paternity leave tends to be about two weeks here, as opposed to months in more progressive European countries.

Because paternity leave is a very rare thing in the US. You may live in Europe where this being news sounds like nonsense, which more Americans need to realize. Less than 15% of US employers offer paternity leave,

And what percentage of the workforce is employed by that 15% of employers? For example, the US Gov't would count as ONE employer, yet they employ some 4 million workers...

And what percentage of the workforce is employed by that 15% of employers? For example, the US Gov't would count as ONE employer, yet they employ some 4 million workers...

I couldn't find the stats for fathers, but overall only 11% of workers are covered by paid family leave policies (source [whitehouse.gov]). Since paid maternity leave is more common than paid paternity leave, the numbers for fathers would be less than 11%.

[...] why must your employer provide healthcare, paternity leave, and retirement planning? Are US Citizens incapable of taking care of their own needs?

With income inequality growing at an alarming rate, yes most citizens are incapable of taking care of their own needs. That is why safety net programs exist. Highly skilled and paid workers like myself, and probably yourself given your lack of sympathy, have careers where

It's great when all these very wealthy/successful companies can afford to just hand out massive benefits , but for the majority of companies that are no way as successful (and also provide most of the jobs in the USA), they simply can't afford to pay people for months while not working

that *every* company, small and large, can somehow afford to "hand out".

It's a competition thing. If nobody is required to do it, then one company that cuts paid maternity/paternity leave gains a competitive advantage and can price its products lower. Other companies then have to follow suit to remain economically competitive. Eventually nobody has paid maternity/paternity leave anymore. The ones which refused to give it up were eliminated from the marketplace due to being unable to compete.

That's the deal. The company gets a supply of educated, healthy workers in exchange for providing them with certain mandatory stuff. If the company can't afford it then it can't expect society to just keep giving it all those benefits for free. Both sides have to keep up their end of the deal.

These benefits should be at the federal level. In my country Venezuela here's what happens:

You get paid vacations, 15 days per year, one additional day per year workedMaternity leave is paid and up to 8 months, and can be divided in pre maternity and post maternity. Women mix them up with their vacations to extend the time with their babies.Companies must provide a daily food allowance benefit (sounds good on paper, but inflation is so high, it doesn't do much)

The economy is just a little messed up in Venezula last I looked... Maybe you should re-think that as a positive example.

Oh, and don't confuse the government 'offering' paternal time off with government 'forcing employers' to offer paternal time off. Politicians like to take credit for forcing employers to offer benefits at the employer's expense.

In some cases countries do offer 'unemployment'-type paternity benefits that amount to a fraction of the workers normal pay.

You are right, our economy isn't just a little messed up, it's very much a lot or most of it. However i do think our labor laws are better than in the US, at least in the matter of the worker's rights.

is how many contractors FB hires. When companies have super sweet benefits like this they usually use contractor positions to get out of giving them company wide. I can't think of a single major company I haven't seen this done at:(...

When companies have super sweet benefits like this they usually use contractor positions to get out of giving them company wide.

That's funny from what I recall companies with a large number of contractors do so out of externalising risk (contracting out entire departments to a single other company), or employ contractors AT THE REQUEST OF THE PEOPLE.

Yes that happens quite a lot. I was considering switching to becoming a contractor at my last job because the benefits the company provided were not very relevant to me and not something I intended on being able to cash in on, like a fuel card, despite the fact I cycle to work. Same goes

No word on why the child will only get 50% of that time â" maybe that's what the gains chart suggested as a good tradeoff â" or if expectant parents who apply to send their children to Zuckerberg's new Primary School, which aims to "help children from underserved communities reach their full potential," will be expected to make a similar commitment.

If Mark Zuckerberg were a regular person, I could see taking only half the time offered initially, reserving the right to take the additional time if

For us mundanes, preventing your children from accessing social media will probably make for even better outcomes.... Not sure if they could get together a statistically significant sample for that though, so its just my feeling.

For hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, fathers never took time off when their kids were born. One can also make the case that the fathers of the "Greatest Generation" (both the parents and the children of that generation) never took time off and yet they were the greatest generation. By the same token, one can make the case that this current crop of breeders are total pu$$ies.

For hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, fathers never took time off when their kids were born. One can also make the case that the fathers of the "Greatest Generation" (both the parents and the children of that generation) never took time off and yet they were the greatest generation. By the same token, one can make the case that this current crop of breeders are total pu$$ies.

For hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, we had no real medicine and thought that a good stink was good for keeping the demons away. No doubt those people would think that we who bathe regularly are total pussies too.

Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean that it was a good thing.

I'd be more impressed if he was offering the same benefit to his employees.

So be impressed. You could even have read the summary which stated "At Facebook we offer our U.S. employees up to 4 months of paid maternity or paternity leave which they can take throughout the year."

As the 'up to' could mean that the claim is actually bullshit, I googled for a few seconds and found this:"A Facebook spokesman, Slater Tow, said in an e-mail that the company offers four months of paid leave to both mothers and fathers, including same-sex couples, as long as they are full-time employees. The

Yeah. Thank god Zucker's thinking ahead because my brat is getting ready to simply EXCEL in phys ed. (To my great disappointment my son is moving to Reno, NV to teach phys ed. for $30,000 a yr) look out Zuckerberg, phys ed is coming for ya.)I know, he could be headed there to deal meth but I did have higher hopes for the kid. I don't think the Zuckerberg brood needs much more in the help department than anything more his billionaire parents can give him.

Is he really this stupid? Nothing in those first two months gives the kid the advantage. For a good chunk of that time the child will be functionally unable to see much of anything. Bonding with the mother and establishing healthy sleeping and feeding habits will be more important than having him around.

The point of these studies are that the ability to take time off CORRELATES to better outcomes, not that they are CAUSED by taking this time off. Being the type of dad who can take time off, who is fina